Ag gag – Animal Legal Defense Fundhttp://aldf.org
Winning the Case Against CrueltyWed, 07 Dec 2016 21:09:14 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.1LIVE with the Animal Legal Defense Fund: Ag-Gaghttp://aldf.org/blog/live-with-the-animal-legal-defense-fund-ag-gag/
Tue, 01 Nov 2016 20:35:19 +0000http://aldf.org/?p=54092Our first Facebook LIVE event gave viewers the chance to have their questions answered in a live streaming conversation with the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Executive Director Stephen Wells and Chief Legal Counsel Matthew Liebman. Up for discussion: Ag-Gag laws. With a decision in our case against Utah’s Ag-Gag law just days away, viewers brought their best questions to the table. Watch the video below to learn about the different kinds of Ag-Gag laws, why they’re dangerous, and what the Animal Legal Defense Fund is doing to stop them.

SAN FRANCISCO — Today a coalition of public interest groups and journalists led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Idaho, the Center for Food Safety, and Public Justice filed a brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit defending the United States District Court of Idaho’s August 2015 decision striking down Idaho’s Ag-Gag law on the ground that it violates the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which grant freedom of speech and the right to equal protection under the law. The Ninth Circuit will be the first appellate court in the nation to consider the constitutionality of an Ag-Gag law.

Idaho’s Ag-Gag law is one of the most sweeping laws of its kind, criminalizing “recording” of factory farms and slaughterhouses and prohibiting the use of “misrepresentations” to gain access to an agricultural operation. For example, if an employee on a farm takes a picture without permission of any part of her work – such as animal cruelty, food safety violations, or even a blocked fire escape – she could go to jail. So could an undercover investigator who omitted his media affiliation while applying for a job at a slaughterhouse to expose inhumane and unsafe practices.

The state legislature enacted the law after an undercover investigation revealed rampant cruelty at an Idaho dairy farm. Drafted by the Idaho Dairyman’s Association, the law essentially criminalized investigative journalism.

Last year, the district court found that the law was enacted specifically to stop activists and investigators from being able to go undercover in the agricultural industry and to shield it from public accountability.

“The agricultural lobby convinced state legislatures to enact these laws to stifle whistleblowing and keep the public in the dark about factory farming,” says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells, “but we are optimistic that the court will send a strong message to Idaho and other Ag-Gag states that they cannot trample civil liberties for the benefit of an industry.”

“Unsanitary and unethical conditions in factory farms promote the spread of disease in both people and animals, and play a major role in increased antibiotic use and resistance. Idaho cannot shield this industry and deny consumers’ right to know how their food is produced at the expense of public health,” says Paige Tomaselli, attorney at Center for Food Safety.

After the briefing is complete, an oral argument date will be set, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision could be expected sometime next year. Members of the coalition also have lawsuits pending in federal district courts challenging the constitutionality of Utah’s and North Carolina’s Ag-Gag laws.

Copies of the brief are available upon request.

The coalition includes the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, Center for Food Safety, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward, journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. The plaintiffs are represented by in-house counsel, Leslie Brueckner of Public Justice, Justin Marceau and Alan Chen of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1979 to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system. To accomplish this mission, the Animal Legal Defense Fund files high-impact lawsuits to protect animals from harm; provides free legal assistance and training to prosecutors to assure that animal abusers are punished for their crimes; supports tough animal protection legislation and fights harmful legislation; and provides resources and opportunities to law students and professionals to advance the emerging field of animal law. For more information, please visit aldf.org.

About PETA

Founded in 1980, PETA is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than five million members and supporters worldwide. PETA uses public education, cruelty investigations, celebrity involvement, protest campaigns, and other innovative tactics to spread the message that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or to abuse in any other way. For more information, please visit PETA.org.

About the ACLU of Idaho

The ACLU of Idaho is a non-partisan organization dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of civil liberties and civil rights. We believe that the freedom of press, speech, assembly, and religion, and the rights to due process, equal protection and privacy, are fundamental to a free people. The ACLU of Idaho strives to advance civil liberties and civil rights by activities that include litigation, education, and lobbying. For more information, please visit acluidaho.org.

About Farm Sanctuary

Founded in 1986, Farm Sanctuary works to change how our society views and treats farm animals through rescue, education and advocacy. The organization provides lifelong care for animals rescued from abuse at four sanctuary locations in New York, California and New Jersey; promotes compassionate vegan living; and advocates legal and policy reforms. To learn more about Farm Sanctuary, visit farmsanctuary.org.

About Center for Food Safety

Center for Food Safety’s mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. Please join our more than 750,000 consumer and farmer advocates across the country at centerforfoodsafety.org. Twitter: @CFSTrueFood, @CFS_Press

About Public Justice

Public Justice pursues high impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice, protect the Earth’s sustainability, and challenge predatory corporate conduct and government abuses. Learn more at www.publicjustice.net.

SALT LAKE CITY — Yesterday the Animal Legal Defense Fund, PETA, and Salt Lake City resident Amy Meyer filed a motion for summary judgment in their challenge to Utah’s notorious Ag-Gag law, seeking to have the law formally struck down as unconstitutional.

This lawsuit was the first in the nation to challenge ‘Ag-Gag’ laws, which criminalize undercover investigations by animal rights activists and journalists at factory farms and slaughterhouses. The lawsuit was filed in 2013 alleging that Utah’s Ag-Gag law violates the constitutional guarantees of free speech and equal protection.

After filing this challenge to the Utah law, the Plaintiffs also challenged Idaho’s Ag-Gag law. The Idaho case was swiftly and decisively resolved in favor of the Plaintiffs, with the federal court holding that Ag-Gag laws like those in Utah and Idaho “suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment.”

Plaintiffs are now seeking a formal declaration that the Utah Ag-Gag law is also unconstitutional. It has already been determined by a federal judge that laws impeding whistleblowing in the realm of food production run afoul of the constitution, and the summary judgment motion filed today is intended to formally extend this reasoning to Utah.

“The Utah Ag-Gag law, no less than the Idaho one, is an affront to the First Amendment’s promise of free speech, to say nothing of our societal commitment to free and open debate and transparency,” says Stephen Wells, Executive Director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

“It’s egregiously unconstitutional to allow Big Agriculture to keep cruelty to animals a secret,” says PETA Director of Litigation Matthew Strugar. “The Idaho courts have spoken, and now it’s time for Utah to confirm that PETA and others have a right to expose criminal abuse.”

###

About the Animal Legal Defense Fund

The Animal Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1979 to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system. To accomplish this mission, the Animal Legal Defense Fund files high-impact lawsuits to protect animals from harm; provides free legal assistance and training to prosecutors to assure that animal abusers are punished for their crimes; supports tough animal protection legislation and fights harmful legislation; and provides resources and opportunities to law students and professionals to advance the emerging field of animal law. For more information, please visit aldf.org.

About PETA

Founded in 1980, PETA is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 5 million members and supporters worldwide. PETA uses public education, cruelty investigations, celebrity involvement, protest campaigns, and other innovative tactics to spread the message that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or to abuse in any other way. For more information, please visit PETA.org.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the federal agency responsible for the enforcement of laws pertaining to farming, agriculture, and food production, estimates that more than 9 billion animals will be slaughtered in the U.S. this year.

Despite increasing worldwide demand for meat and the accelerating pace of American slaughter lines, there are acknowledged staffing shortages among the USDA’s inspector corps that have existed for some time.

More than half a million people work in low-income jobs in American slaughterhouses and related facilities. Many are undocumented, and they labor with little job security in physically demanding and often dangerous conditions.

In October 2014, following years of intense lobbying by the meat industry, and in spite of opposition from citizens groups, the USDA elected to allow some poultry plant employees, rather than USDA inspectors, decide whether their products are safe for consumption. At the same time, the agency reduced the number of trained inspectors in plants nationwide.

Meanwhile numerous investigations within the animal agriculture industry have exposed a pattern and practice of animal cruelty and workplace violations. In response, and at the behest of the industry, eight states have passed laws that essentially criminalize whistleblowing and undercover activism, making it illegal to record and disseminate photographs or footage taken in agricultural operations. These are the “Ag-Gag” laws.

Agribusiness leaders want to hide the suffering of the animals they kill and of the workers who kill and butcher them. They want to hide the frantic pace of production that churns fecal matter into ground meat. They want to hide lagoons of hog offal that pollute groundwater with the insecticides, antibiotics, and vaccines used to fatten hogs, herds, and profit margins.

But ALDF is challenging the industry’s efforts to cover up its illegal activities in court, with cooperation from allied organizations in consumer rights, food safety, civil liberties, and whistleblower-protection agencies.

In 2013, ALDF led a coalition in filing the nation’s first challenge to an Ag-Gag law, representing activist Amy Meyer in a case against the state of Utah, charging that the law infringes on free-speech rights by criminalizing undercover investigations. Meyer, who had videotaped the operations at Dale Smith Meatpacking Company from the roadside, was the first person in the nation to be prosecuted under an Ag-Gag law, although the charges were dropped after a public outcry. In August 2014, despite a motion from the state to dismiss the case, the court allowed the lawsuit to move forward.

Last August, in another lawsuit brought by ALDF and a coalition of public interest organizations, including PETA, the Center for Food Safety, and the ACLU, a federal district court in Idaho struck down the state’s Ag-Gag law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Drafted by the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, the law made it a criminal offense to document animal welfare, worker safety, and food safety violations at any “agricultural production facility,” thus “gagging” speech that is critical of industrial agriculture. The statute defines “agricultural production facility” so broadly that it applies not only to factory farms and slaughterhouses, but also to public parks, restaurants, nursing homes, grocery stores, pet stores, and virtually every public accommodation and private residence.

In Wyoming, ALDF represented environmentalists in challenging two state laws criminalizing any individual who enters private or public open land without permission to collect what the state defines as resource data—including pictures of noxious weeds, samples of polluted water, videos of injured animals, or notes on the landscape—and then communicates that data to a federal or state agency.

Most recently, ALDF and a coalition of allied organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a new North Carolina law that allows for civil suits against whistleblowers who seek to reveal wrongdoing at any workplace. That law, effective January 1, prohibits investigations not only in agricultural settings, but also in any private business, including hospitals, elder care facilities, veteran care facilities, and schools. The New York Times endorsed the lawsuit, writing that “[t]he secrecy promoted by ag-gag laws should have no place in American society.”

Nonetheless, big agribusiness knows that interest continues to grow among the American public in where its food comes from, who’s producing it, and how it’s being produced. In North Carolina, a state with an economy heavily dependent on hog production, 74 percent of voters “support undercover investigations by animal welfare groups on farms,” according to a May 2015 poll. In Idaho, an October 2015 poll found 53 percent of respondents agreed with the federal judge’s overturning of that state’s Ag-Gag law, while less than a third opposed his ruling.

Though not to be taken lightly, we see such laws as examples of the desperation increasingly felt by industries that rely on cruelty and neglect to thrive. With so much to hide, corporate meat producers feel forced to firewall their practices from government inspectors, from their own customers, and from the American public. No Ag-Gag law is immune from challenge.

Raleigh, N.C. – A coalition of animal protection, consumer rights, food safety, and whistleblower protection organizations filed a federal lawsuit today challenging the constitutionality of a North Carolina law designed to deter whistleblowers and undercover investigators from publicizing information about corporate misconduct.

The state legislature overrode a veto of the bill by Governor Pat McCrory in June 2015, and the law took effect on January 1. Under the law, organizations and journalists who conduct undercover investigations, and individuals who expose improper or criminal conduct by North Carolina employers, are susceptible to suit and substantial damages if they make such evidence available to the public or the press.

According to the complaint filed today, the law’s purpose is to punish those “who set out to investigate employers and property owners’ conduct because they believe there is value in exposing employers and property owners’ unethical or illegal behavior to the disinfecting sunlight of public scrutiny.”

The plaintiffs, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Center for Food Safety, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch, and the Government Accountability Project, said today that they are taking legal action because North Carolina’s law “blatantly violates our rights to free speech, to a free press, and to petition our government, and violates the Equal Protection Clause. It places the safety of our families, our food supply, and animals at risk.”

The North Carolina law is part of a growing number of so-called ‘ag-gag laws’ passed by state legislators across the country. The bills, which are pushed by lobbyists for corporate agriculture companies, are an attempt to escape scrutiny over unsafe practices and animal abuses by threatening liability for those who expose these improper and, in many cases, illegal practices. North Carolina’s version is written so broadly that it would also ban undercover investigations of all private entities, including nursing homes and daycare centers. The North Carolina law threatens to silence conscientious employees who witness and wish to report wrongdoing.

Today’s legal challenge is the first in the nation to make claims under both the U.S. Constitution and a state constitution. Last year, a federal court overturned Idaho’s ag-gag law on the basis that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and in late December a federal judge ruled that a challenge to Wyoming’s law must go forward, citing “serious concerns” about that law’s constitutionality.

The North Carolina plaintiffs are represented by David S. Muraskin and Leslie A. Brueckner of Public Justice in Washington, D.C.; and Daniel K. Bryson and Jeremy Wilson of Whitfield, Bryson & Mason LLP in Raleigh, N.C.

The following attorneys are representing their own organization: Matthew Strugar of PETA in Los Angeles, Calif.; Matthew Liebman of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Cotati, Calif.,; Christina R. Stella and Paige Tomaselli of the Center for Food Safety in Sacramento, Calif.; Scott Edwards of Food and Water Watch in Washington, D.C.; and Sarah L. Nash of the Government Accountability Project in Washington, D.C.

Justin Marceau of the University of Denver-Sturm College of Law is Of Counsel to the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

The plaintiffs’ joint statement in full:

North Carolina’s Anti-Sunshine Law seriously hinders North Carolinians’ ability to know the truth about misconduct, mistreatment and corruption happening in virtually every industry, including nursing homes, factory farms, financial institutions, daycare centers and more. It’s an extreme law forced on citizens over a governor’s veto by lawmakers who bowed to pressure from corporate lobbyists. This law blatantly violates citizens’ rights to free speech, a free press, and to petition their government, and violates the Equal Protection Clause. It places the safety of our families, our food supply, and animals at risk, and it attempts to bully and threaten those working for transparency, free speech and the public good. Our lawsuit is being brought for the sake of the health and safety of all citizens of North Carolina. We are confident the law will be found unconstitutional and that a victory in North Carolina will deter other state legislatures from repeating North Carolina’s mistake.

Draft copies of the complaint in the suit are available for download (PDF).

Today Judge B. Lynn Winmill issued the final judgment declaring Idaho’s Ag-Gag law unconstitutional and enjoining the state from enforcing the law. The judgment comes as the result of a ground-breaking lawsuit filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, alongside a broad-based public interest coalition of advocates for animals, workers, journalists, the environment, and consumers.

In August, Judge Winmill issued a 29-page written opinion, which held that the Ag-Gag statute was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. Judge Winmill observed that if the Ag-Gag law were allowed to stand, “[t]he effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment.”

Today’s judgment gives legal effect to the August opinion by formally declaring the Ag-Gag statute unconstitutional and permanently enjoining and prohibiting the state from enforcing the statute.

As of today, undercover investigations at agricultural facilities in Idaho are once again legal. These investigations reveal the routine animal suffering inherent in the production of animal products and shine a light on an industry shrouded in secrecy.

BOISE — Idaho’s Ag-Gag law is unconstitutional, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho ruled today. In a landmark victory for a broad-based public interest coalition of national nonprofits, including the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Idaho, and Center for Food Safety (CFS), the court held that the Ag-Gag law, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Today’s decision marks the first time a court has declared an Ag-Gag statute unconstitutional.

The statute criminalizes undercover investigations that document animal welfare, worker safety, and food safety violations at an “agricultural production facility,” thus “gagging” speech that is critical of industrial agriculture, including speech that advances significant public interests in protecting Idahoans’ safety. Under this law, journalists, workers, activists, and members of the public can be convicted for documenting animal cruelty or life-threatening safety violations. The court ruled that this statute violates the First Amendment by suppressing speech that criticizes factory farms and was motivated by unconstitutional animus against animal advocates—which is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Undercover video and photography has exposed numerous shocking practices that are “industry standards.” These pervasive, systematic procedures include routine mutilation, including debeaking birds with electrically heated blades and castrating male animals by slicing open their scrotum and ripping their testicles out without pain relief or anesthesia and intensive confinement—where animals are literally unable to turn around for months on end. Exposes have also detailed the sickening farming conditions resulting in contaminated meat products—posing serious health risks to the public—and life threatening conditions for farm workers.

These investigations, and the subsequent media coverage, have led to food safety recalls, citations for environmental and labor violations, evidence of health code violations, plant closures, criminal convictions, and civil litigation. The Idaho statute unconstitutionally and unwisely prohibits efforts to bring violations of state and federal laws relating to food safety, environmental protection, and animal handling to the attention of the public and law enforcement.

Ag-Gag laws are notoriously unsupported by the public. Nationwide thirty-two similar Ag-Gag measures have failed. Currently, seven states have Ag-Gag laws on the books. This Idaho decision is just the first step in defeating similar Ag-Gag laws across the country.

Interview Opportunities:

Matthew Liebman, Senior Attorney, ALDF

Justin Marceau, Of Counsel, ALDF, and Professor of Constitutional Law

Matthew Strugar, Director of Litigation, PETA

Paige M. Tomaselli, Senior Attorney, Center for Food Safety

Plaintiffs include ALDF, PETA, ACLU, CFS, Farm Sanctuary, River’s Wish Animal Sanctuary, Western Watersheds Project, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment (ICARE), the political journal CounterPunch, Farm Forward, journalist Will Potter, Professor James McWilliams, investigator Monte Hickman, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff. The plaintiffs are represented by in-house counsel, Leslie Brueckner of Public Justice, Justin Marceau of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, and the law firm of Maria E. Andrade.

BOISE — On Tuesday, April 28, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho will hear oral arguments from plaintiffs for a broad-based public interest coalition of national nonprofits, including the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Idaho, and Center for Food Safety (CFS), who have requested summary judgment in their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Idaho’s “ag gag” statute, Idaho Code sec. 18-7042. The coalition argues that the statute violates rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit, filed in March 2014, could become the first constitutional challenge to an ag gag statute to reach a final judgment. In July, the court denied the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Idaho’s controversial ag gag statute makes it a crime to conduct an undercover investigation at an Idaho agricultural facility. Under this law, journalists, workers, activists, and members of the public can be convicted for videotaping animal cruelty or life-threatening safety violations. The coalition argues that this statute violates the First Amendment by suppressing speech that criticizes factory farms, and that the statute was motivated by unconstitutional animus against animal advocates in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In January, Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s foremost constitutional experts and founding dean and distinguished professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, submitted a friend of the court brief supporting the coalition’s challenge. Idaho’s ag gag statute “singles out those investigators and journalists critical of animal abuse. And the law’s effect on newsgathering, by design…directly criminalizes surreptitious newsgathering at agricultural facility,” Professor Chemerinsky writes. Going undercover, he notes, “is a practice with a long and venerable history in the finest traditions of the First Amendment.” His brief concludes that “the Court should also hold that the Ag Gag law is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.” The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has also submitted a friend of the court brief supporting the coalition’s lawsuit, as did two constitutional law professors who are experts on the Equal Protection Clause.

Factory farms, where animals are raised for production of meat, eggs, and dairy, are the cause of unimaginable suffering for billions of animals in the U.S. each year. They are also a major contributor to climate change and air and water pollution. Yet factory farms are routinely exempted from regulations for animal care and environmental protection.

Ag gag – Ag gag laws criminalize the documentation of animal abuse on factory farms. They don’t try to stop animal abuse—they try to stop the reporting of animal abuse, which would hurt the industry’s bottom line. ALDF and a broad coalition of public interest groups have filed landmark constitutional challenges to these statutes that gag free speech in Utah and Idaho.

Antibiotics – Because of the intensive confinement and filthy conditions on factory farms, the industry recklessly doses animals with antibiotics before they get sick. But this “sub-therapeutic” dosing of animals is linked with the proliferation of “superbugs”—antibiotic resistant bacteria that pose one of the greatest health threats of the 21st century. Currently factory farms aren’t even required to label meat products to let consumers know they’re consuming potential superbugs—that’s why ALDF has petitioned the USDA to require mandatory labeling.

Greenhouse gases – Animal agriculture is a significant contributor to climate change—that’s an incontrovertible fact established by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations. Yet, unlike the energy and transportation industries, factory farms aren’t required to limit greenhouse gas emissions. That’s why ALDF filed a first-of-its-kind petition calling on the California Air Resources Board to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from factory farms.

Ractopamine – Despite being banned or restricted by the European Union, Russia, China, and 100 other nations, ractopamine is permitted in U.S. animal feed. Use of the drug, which speeds animal growth to slaughter weight, is cruel to animals and dangerous to humans. ALDF and the Center for Food Safety have petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to reduce ractopamine use.

Water – As California instigates emergency water restrictions for individuals during its historic drought crisis, factory farms, by far the largest users of water, face no new restrictions. Even though a tiny fraction of consumptive water is used by urban water users, we were asked to cut our water use by 25%. Factory farms that drain nearly half of California’s consumptive water use have not been compelled to restrict their water use one iota. ALDF will petition the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure that they do.

]]>http://aldf.org/blog/5-ways-aldf-is-challenging-factory-farming-of-animals/feed/10Save the Date for Speak Out for Farmed Animals Week!http://aldf.org/blog/save-the-date-for-speak-out-for-farmed-animals-week/
http://aldf.org/blog/save-the-date-for-speak-out-for-farmed-animals-week/#commentsTue, 17 Feb 2015 20:40:16 +0000http://aldf.org/?p=50037Mark your calendars! March 29 – April 4, 2015, is the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s first annual Speak Out for Farmed Animals Week, a yearly event dedicated to raising public awareness nationwide about the lack of meaningful laws that protect farmed animals from cruel treatment.

Suggested Events & Projects

Hold a film screening. We suggest Death on a Factory Farm about a case involving criminal anti-cruelty charges brought against a pig farmer. Or team up with the Environmental Law Society and show Cowspiracy, about the environmental impacts of factory farming.

Email or call your representative about pending local, state, or federal legislation impacting farmed animals, including ag gag bills. Check city and state government websites for current legislation.

Organize an ALDF Benefit Day by contacting a local vegan/vegetarian restaurant or animal-friendly business to see if they would donate a percentage of their total daily sales to ALDF to help us in our groundbreaking legal work for animals.

You can apply for a project grant to support your event. The project grant guidelines and application can be found here. If your chapter is interested in getting involved and receiving promotional materials, please contact Student Programs Coordinator Nicole Pallotta at npallotta@aldf.org.